Leadership in the Chaordic Age

Len Hjalmarson

Todays church is in serious trouble. The crisis we see is a crisis

in leadership, because leaders are often the first to resist
change, fearing loss of position or influence. Where internal
resistance is not an issue, time often is. Leaders cease being
learners not only because they fear change, but because the
pressure of leadership tends to create reaction more than
reflection. Perhaps Canadian leadership guru Michael Fullan is
right when he observes that, the two greatest failures of
leaders are indecisiveness in times of urgent need for action
and dead certainty that they are right in times of complexity. 1
Thankfully, our dualistic and hierarchical 2 models of leadership are falling in favour of holistic and
egalitarian models. The crisis is thus an opportunity to rediscover the vocation of the church as an
authentic community, a living priesthood, a missional people in a foreign land. We have the opportunity
to move from leadership cults, to leadership cultures; instead of lone rangers, we need meaning makers;
instead of the Wiz we need Dorothy. Back in 2003 Reggie McNeal wrote,

The current church culture in NA is on life support. It is living off the work, money and energy of
previous generations from a previous world order. The plug will be pulled either when the money runs
out (80 percent of money given to congregations comes from people aged fifty five and older) or when
the remaining three fourths of a generation who are institutional loyalists die off or both...3
In spite of emptying pews and the rapidly growing de-churched population, the old models are not falling
without resistance. We dont easily leave behind what we know, any more than we easily give up power.
The problem of leadership baggage is acute because what was functional in one setting is dysfunctional
in a new context. Complexity and net-worked reality conspire against hierarchical models where decisions
flow down and information flows up.4 Bottlenecks spell a broken system, and organizations which dont
know how to learn cannot adapt, and become monuments to past glory.
A Leadership Crisis?
Ron Martoia was asked in an interview in 2003, What do you see as the two biggest problems facing
leaders in the emerging church?
The first thing is lack of maps and few cartographers. Our modernist moorings, where being seminar
junkies and bookaholics was rewarded with the right answers for our analytical questions, makes
ministry in this emerging era very problematic. The fact is indigenous ministry will not tolerate book
answers to our questions. And the maps may look very different from what we are used to.

Michael Fullan, The Six Secrets of Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008) 16. Fullan observes that
management theory, .. has four defects: it is constitutionally incapable of self-criticism; its terminology usually
confuses rather than educates; it rarely rises above common sense; and it is faddish and bedeviled by
contradictions.
2
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
2003)
3
Reggie McNeal. The Present Future. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003.
4
Kilpatrick, Falk and Johns. Leadership for Dynamic Learning Communities (University of Tasmania,
2002).

The second big issue is how to create more workable models of life change and transformation. We find
the information revolution so sexy. But the reality is for all the information floating around in the
church there seems to be a nearly inverse proportion of life change. 5

We need maps to help us set direction; but who makes

the maps? In our confusing time, the demand for
answers is more intense than ever. As systems break
down the anxiety rises dramatically. What once worked
no longer works. The pressure is on for leaders to
provide solutions.
Inevitably, the first response is to try harder, and search
for a bigger hammer. Our models, rooted in the
scientific revolution, are built around the application of
power. But the Titanic would still have hit the iceberg at
30 knots instead of the 24 she was making. Once her
hull was ripped open, more pumps would not have
helped; her design allowed water over the bulkheads to
move along compartment by compartment. All our
thinking about the problem is within a single paradigm:
knowledge is power. But what do we do when the linear
cause and effect model becomes part of the problem? We need to work WITH the context rather than
impose a solution. Margaret Wheatley writes, Western practices attempt to dominate life; we want life to
comply with human needs rather than working as partners. This disregard for lifes dynamics is
alarmingly evident in todays organizations. Leaders use control and imposition rather than selforganizing processes. They react to uncertainty and chaos by tightening already feeble controls, rather
than engaging our best capacities in the dance.6
The analogy of dance reminds us that the Trinity is also a model for leadership: mutuality, and
participation.7 The best capacities of people are engaged when they participate: when they have a voice,
when they are valued as partners, and when they see that their work has meaning. These qualities of
participation can help us to a new practice of leadership based on the nature of the Body of Christ.
The Whole or the Parts?
In a paper in 2002, Richard Ascough notes that Paul avoided hierarchical, externally imposed models of
leadership in favor of promoting self-organizing, self-governing, adaptive groups. He comments that,
"Pauls leadership style could thus be characterized as involving what modern scientists call 'chaos
theory.'" Chaos theory is a biological model that sees an organization as a living, self-organizing web of
relationships. 8

Ron Martoia. Interview at Ginkworld.net, 2003. Notice that this begs an epistemology, which is the single
largest shift in the move from modernity to postmodernity. We are still discovering just how powerful the
imagination is in the process of knowing and learning.
6
Margaret Wheatley, Finding Our Way Again: Leadership for an Uncertain Time (San Francisco: Barrett
Koehler, 2007).
7
See my other paper, The Trinitarian Nature of Leadership. The term perichoresis pictures a dance.
8
Ascough, Richard. Chaos Theory and Pauls Organizational Leadership Style (Journal of Religious
Leadership, Vol. 1, No. 2. Fall 2002). 21-43.

We are convinced that the new

leadership we need to cultivate isnt
primarily about more knowledge
and content; it's about how you form
learning communities that are
apprenticed into new skills and
habits

What if leadership has more to do with finding

meaning than setting direction? In an increasingly
complex world, setting a direction can get you killed.
Where once we could forecast the future based on a
series of measurements, and assumption of a
constant rate of change, we live in a time when
change has become non-linear, and we control only
the smallest factors.9 The danger of imposing the old
models on complex problems has been amply
demonstrated in American foreign policy. Joshua
Cooper Ramo writes,

Louis Halle, an American diplomat and strategist of

the 1950s, once observed that foreign policy is made
not in reaction to the world but in reaction to an
image of the world in the minds of the people making decisions. In the degree that the image is
false, actually and philosophically, no technician, however proficient, can make the policy that is
based on it sound.10

Alan Roxburgh

The image of the world that western leaders work with may never have represented reality very well: yet
the model worked in an industrial, linear, and pre-networked context. But that world only exists in
isolated pockets today, and no longer represents the reality for most of us in the West. So what difference
does it make?
In the latter half of The Age of the Unthinkable, the author points to the
discoveries of social researcher Richard Nisbett. 11 Nisbett discovered
that the world views of east and west are distinctive: in the east change
is seen as a constant. In the West we lean toward determinism, even
where we interpret it through a religious lens (God upholds the Universe
and creates laws which make interactions predictable).12 Moreover, and
related, in the east the emphasis is on context, a relational and more-orless gestalt approach to reality. In the West, we look at the whole
through the parts. We are analytical in our approach to knowing. This is
mostly a result of our interest in knowledge as power. We stress
rational and propositional knowledge: knowledge independent of
context. The difference this makes in a complex and inter-connected
world was demonstrated by Nisbett in a simple test.
The problem was designed to measure the focal interest of eastern and
western graduate students. A display was set up where thirty-six images
flashed, changing every thirty seconds, with an eye-tracker recording
where the subject looked. Western students immediately looked at the foreground object the horse or
tiger, for example. And once they spotted the central image they spent the bulk of the time looking right at

The butterfly effect has been coined to describe the non-linearity of change effects in a highly
connected world. Similarly Heisenberg gave us the uncertainty principle.
10
Joshua Cooper Ramo, The Age of the Unthinkable (New York: Little, Brown & Co., 2009) 13.
11
Ibid., 157
12
Roger Olson explores differing takes on Gods sovereignty, A Relational View of Gods Sovereignty.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/04/a-non-calivinist-relational-view-of-gods-sovereignty/

it. Chinese students, by contrast, looked at the environment first, probing the complex background of
forest or field. They did look at the focal object, but for far less time than the American students. 13
When the data was sorted, the researchers first thought there must be an error. From the point of view of
westerners, it was as if the eastern students were more interested in the wallet than in the family photo.
The Americans could easily recall specific objects they had seen: a car, a dolphin, a horse. The Chinese
often forgot the object they had seen, but could describe the backgrounds in detail.
The conclusion: those immersed in the eastern world much more quickly perceive the meaning of
relationships. They are far more sensitive to context, and they will thrive in this connected world in ways
that Enlightenment westerners will not. The current shift to connected and networked reality, and the
primacy of relationships and contexts, will remain a huge challenge for those of us raised in the analog
world.
Leadership and Strange Attractors
To the western mind, the details smacks of chaos. We are less interested
in the connections than in the function, so we ask pragmatic questions. Our
goal is to solve the problem.14 But we can learn from the world of quantum
physics. In QM, chaos is the norm, and instead of certainty there are
probabilities. How do we lead in a world of uncertainty, and complex
adaptive change? Enter the strange attractors.
Strange attractors, in the world of physics cause order to emerge from
apparent chaos. Strange attractors are like guiding principles, or values,
and have more impact on individual behavior than good management.
Instead of setting direction, we could clarify purpose. When purpose is
clear, focus becomes possible, and management can shift to collaboration
and empowerment.
Purpose and principle, clearly understood and articulated, and commonly shared, are the genetic
code of any healthy organization. To the degree that you hold purpose and principles in common
among you , you can dispense with command and control. People will know how to behave in
accordance with them, and they will do it in thousands of unimaginable, creative ways. The
organization will become a vital, living set of beliefs. 15
Chaordic leaders resist taking control because they know that focus is more important than individual
behaviors. Taking control would mean replacing individual initiative, and re-centralizing authority, thus
impeding the development of a leadership culture. Control and certainty have both been greatly overrated. In The Spider and the Starfish16 Brafman and Beckstrom explored the power of leaderless
networks. And certainty is not a value advocated in Scripture, but rather faith, and dependence on the
movement of the Spirit, a dynamic which is never in the control of the church.17

13

Ibid., 159-161
Reminiscent of Larry Crabb: We can either be managers or mystics.
15
Dee Hock, The Art of Chaordic Leadership. In Leader to Leader, No. 15 Winter 2000.
16
Portfolio, 2006. http://www.starfishandspider.com/
17
Karl Barth wrote that, "When a man becomes involved in [theology], its object does not allow him to set
himself apart from it or to claim independence and autarchic self-sufficiency." Evangelical Theology, 75. The shift
in religious models of knowledge is well documented, and more closely mirrors pre-modern thought than Modern.
See in particular James K.A. Smith, Whos Afraid of Postmodernism? Similarly recent developments in
missiology echo that God is not our possession but we are his Gods mission has a church.
14

If our goal is to be in control, we needn't worry about the growth of community; a hierarchy will do. If our
goal is to build a congregation, we only need a few leaders, who will soon burn out with the impossible
task of holding it together. But if our goal is a leadership culture, something like a community on mission,
we need a new vision of leadership. What is the leadership task in a de-centered network? Leaders need to
know how to support, as leadership coach Margaret Wheatley put it,
... self-organizing responses. People do not need the intricate directions, time lines, plans, and
organization charts that we thought we had to give them. These are not how people accomplish
good work; they are what impede contributions. But people do need a lot from their leaders. They
need information, access, resources, trust, and follow-through. Leaders are necessary to foster
experimentation, to help create connections across the organization, to feed the system with rich
information from multiple sources-all while helping everyone stay clear on what we agreed we
wanted to accomplish and who we wanted to be." 18
If our goal is to grow communities and to empower ministry and life, we dare not build a corporate culture
or settle for a congregation. We dare not be the savior or the one with all the answers, or the one who is
indispensable, replacing the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, chaordic leaders dont mind fluid structures and are comfortable with chaos because they
are more interested in finding meaning than in building structures or establishing order. Margaret
Wheatley comments that We instinctively reach out to leaders who work with us in creating meaning. 19
Wilfred Drath and Charles Paulus pursued this direction in a monograph titled Making Common
Sense.20 They argue that the old understanding of leadership rested on a set of assumptions about human
nature and motivation. The dominance-cum-social-influence view assumes that humans are naturally at
rest and that they need a motivation force to get them going. The meaning-making view assumes that
people are naturally in motion, always doing something, and that they need, rather than motivation to act,
frameworks within which their actions make sense.
From this theory appears an important difference and a
powerful advantage. When we no longer see dominance and
social influence as the basic activities of leadership, we no
longer think of people in terms of leaders and followers.
Instead, we can think of leadership as a process in which an
entire community is engaged. This enables us to disentangle
power and authority from leadership. Authority is a tool for
making sense of things, but so are other human tools such as
values and work systems.

"If your actions inspire others

to dream more, learn more, do
more and become more, you
are a leader."
John Quincey Adams

Drath and Paulus have helped me make sense of my own

world; I am not a high D. I would rather collaborate and consult, a communal style that is typically
assigned to females over males. Yet I find that people listen to me and come to me for advice. As a result I
function as a mentor, and rather than offering answers I have found that my role is to engage in honest
dialogue and reflection with them and help them see their commitments and tasks from a new
perspective. This ability to name and interpret life is a poetic function: an essential quality of discovery
and growth, which in turn is at the heart of making meaning.

18

Margaret Wheatley. In Leader to Leader. No.5, Summer, 1997.

Margaret Wheatley. A Simpler Way (San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler Publications, 1996)
20
Wilfred Drath, and Charles Paulus. Making Common Sense: Leadership as Meaning-Making in a
Community of Practice. Center for Creative Leadership, 1994.
19

Too often our leadership models, so heavily tied up with views of authority toward efficiency and
productivity, have resulted in our missing the context and essence of leadership. We focused on what we
could quantify and became like the captain of the ocean liner who carefully steered around the iceberg and
hit it, forgetting that what we don't know and can't control makes up the greater part of the unseen reality.
Working with the unseen elements of growth requires intimate connection (community) and comfort with
process and paradox. Our hope to recover the dynamic of a missional movement requires us to move
beyond hierarchies to something like distributed leadership: a functional flat priesthood in the world. 21
Dorothy vs The Wiz
Brian McLaren in an article titled, Dorothy on Leadership, (Rev. Magazine, Nov/Dec 2000) challenges
the modern assumptions of leadership and the successful pastor as CEO, alpha male, and corporate hero.
McLaren describes his own attempt to emulate the Hybels, Warrens, and Maxwells of the world, and his
discovery that in fact size XXL didnt fit him, just as Sauls armor wasnt designed to fit David.
More to the point, McLaren saw a cultural clash; the models that worked in the modern church no longer
function in the postmodern church. Perhaps they were never very good models anyway.
McLaren muses that as he considered the problem a scene in The Wizard of Oz came to mind. The
scene is when little Toto pulls back the curtain to reveal that the great Wizard of Oz is a very average guy
hiding behind an imposing image. The 1940s world was a
world immersed in modernity, a world that unleashed the ALeadership is not defined by bomb and defeated Nazi Germany: a world enamored with
the exercise of power, but by Superman and the Lone Ranger, confident in its own ability
and in the promises of science to solve all our problems. Yet
the capacity to increase the the film exposes the Wizard as a fraud, expressing a
sense of power among those relentless doubt and displaying an early pang of discontent
with its dominant model of larger-than-life leadership.
who are led.
Brian wondered what image of leadership would replace the
great Wizard.

Gary Hamel

The answer appeared in the next scene. It wasnt the lion,

the scarecrow, or the tin man. It was Dorothy!
At first glance, Dorothy is all wrong as a model of leadership. She is the wrong gender (female) and the
wrong age (young). Rather than being a person with all the answers, who knows whats up and where to
go and whats what, she is herself lost, a seeker, often bewildered, and vulnerable. These characteristics
would disqualify her from modern leadership. But they serve as her best credentials for a new style of
leadership.22
McLaren identifies ten Wizardly characteristics of modern church leadership, like bible analyst and
broadcaster and problem-solver and knower. He compares Dorothy to this picture and the result is
completely different. Dorothy is a bit disoriented, and she gathers other needy people in the belief that all
their needs can be fulfilled in a common quest. Dorothy doesnt have all the answers and cant solve all
the problems, but she believes that somehow they can journey forward together. McLaren contrasts the
characteristics of this post-Wiz leadership to the modern mode.

21

For a helpful glimpse of this movement see Hirsch, The Forgotten Ways and Addision, Movements That
Change the World.
22
Brian McLaren. Dorothy on Leadership (Rev. Magazine, Nov/Dec 2000)

From Bible analyst to spiritual sage

From Broadcaster to listener
From Technician to spiritual friend
From Warrior/Salesman to dancer
From Careerist to Amateur
From Problem Solver to Co-Quester
From Apologist to Apologizer
From Threat to Includer
From Knower to Seeker
From Solo Act to Team Builder
One leadership type that McLaren does not list is the poet. Alan Roxburgh, in The Sky is Falling, sees a
needed leadership type in the poet. Roxburgh argues that poets had little value in the churches of
modernity.23 In modernity we sought to define problems toward a solution. But poets don't bring
solutions; rather they bring questions that invite dialogue. Poets are non-utilitarian. They dont accept the
view of a congregation as a tool for impacting the world. Rather, they see the congregation as the location
of God's work of redemption and the mysterious presence of the future kingdom.
The poet helps people make sense of their experiences. Poets remove the veil and give language to what
people are experiencing. The poet listens to the rhythms and meanings occurring beneath the surface." 24
The leadership of poets is not expressed in a modern manner. Poets "are not so much advice-givers as
image and metaphor framers What churches need are not more entrepreneurial leaders with wonderful
plans for their congregation's life, but poets with the imagination and gifting to cultivate environments
within which people might again understand how their traditional narratives apply to them today. 25
Authority and Service
Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus,
Who, being in the form of God,
did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant.
-- Phil.2:5-7
The empowerment of the early Christians by the Spirit of God sounded the death knell of the old
priesthood. Suddenly all Gods people were directly connected to the Head, with unmediated access to
God.
The rising generation reject authority in position in favor of authority in relationship. They do not buy
into hierarchies, and they tend to respect authority only when it is earned. They dont listen to leaders who
are over but not among. This aligns with the NT teaching on mutual submission in the Body, and
Jesus teaching that the greatest among you must be the servant of all. Dee Hock, the founder of VISA,
writes that,
In the deepest sense, distinction between leaders and followers is meaningless. In every moment of
life, we are simultaneously leading and following. There is never a time when our knowledge,
23

Alan Roxburgh, The Sky is Falling (Eagle, ID: ACI Publications, 2005) 166
Ibid. 164
25
Ibid. 166
24

judgment and wisdom are not more useful and applicable than that of another. There is never a
time when the knowledge, judgment and wisdom of another are not more useful and applicable
than ours. At any time that "other" may be superior, subordinate, or peer. 26
Where the modern church echoed Reformation doctrine on the priesthood of believers, cultural forces
pushed us in practice toward a professional class.27 The priesthood remained, with a more friendly face,
limiting participation to the few rather than equipping and releasing the many. As a consequence, the
church as a whole has asked men and women to open their wallets and shut their mouths. Since the
medium is the message, and large gatherings tend to be stages for the few, its no wonder that believers do
not feel empowered to reach their world and instead defer to a special class of priest or missionary.
Younger leaders may admit that hierarchy grants the illusion of structural efficiency, but they recognize
that the model is from the corporate and technological world. In the biological world (young leaders
prefer the organic metaphors), life loves redundancy. Why not have fifty pastors in a community of two
hundred adults?
Is leadership an ability, a relationship, or a dynamic and collaborative process? Our current
understanding may not allow room for the new kinds of leadership rising around us. 28 Peter Senge writes
that, Leadership is the capacity of the community to bring forth new realities; The leader is a designer
(of the learning process), a steward (of the community vision and values) and a teacher (of the ability to
learn and grow).
Leaders like Senge are building on the concept of team leadership to look for more open models. Some
postmodern leaders like the metaphor of air traffic controller (ATC). An ATC doesnt fly the airplane, he
only establishes safe paths for flight and coordinates their interaction once airborne. The ATC is almost
an invisible part of the process, but his or her role is essential in enabling the flight. Others prefer the
metaphor of symphony conductor.
A good conductor does not merely tell everyone what to do; rather he helps everyone to hear what is
so. For this he is not primarily a telling but a listening individual: even while the orchestra is
performing loudly he is listening inwardly to silent music. He is not so much commanding as he is
obedient.
The conductor conducts by being conducted. He first hears, feels, loses himself in the silent music;
then when he knows what it is he finds a way to help others hear it too. He knows that music is not
made people playing instruments, but rather by music playing people. 29
Recently the buzzword has been teamwork. Unfortunately, we tend to understand teams in a secular
corporate sense: a team is a group of people coordinated by a competent manager. Larry Crabb argues
that we have a choice to make: we can be managers or mystics.
Team or Community?
I always remember the regents axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the
flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all
along they are being directed from behind.30
26

Dee Hock, The Art of Chaordic Leadership. In Leader to Leader, No. 15. Winter 2000.
See Guder et al, Missional Church. Alan Roxburghs contribution, Equipping Gods People for
Mission details the recent evolution of the clergy on 196 ff. See also Gibbs, Leadership Next.
28
Kilpatrick, Falk and Johns. Op Cit.
29
Chaim Potok. My First 79 Years: Isaac Stern (Da Capo Press, 2001)
30
Nelson Mandela in his autobiography Long Walk To Freedom.
27

A team is not the same as a community. When Ephesians 4 gifting is functioning in a community
environment, it can be very difficult to tell who is leading. 31 Leaders may be invisible, encouraging,
empowering, and equipping as they work alongside others sharing similar tasks.
There are two types of ministry environment. In one environment a team or teams are formed to assist
leaders to develop and implement their vision (purpose). In the second environment a community is
formed around a shared sense of passion (belonging). In the team environment success is understood as
empowering the group to reach agreed goals. In the community environment success is understood as
empowering individuals to belong and to reach their creative potential.
In the team environment roles tend to be set in concrete and leaders are indispensable. In the community
environment leaders may be invisible, and leadership roles and functions are often shared. At different
times in the life of the community, depending on need and context and the empowerment of the Spirit,
various ones take the lead depending on their competencies, deferring to the leading of the Lord. The key
qualities in this context are those of Dorothy: humility and discernment.
But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise,
And God has chosen the weak things of the world
To shame the things which are strong.
1 Cor. 1:27-28
Where belonging and shared purpose are the center, vision is not imposed from above, nor does it only
rise from below. Leaders can only lead by learning to follow. Vision rises in the Body from a mysterious
synergy of context, Spirit, and gifts. The Spirit releases vision to the Body, often through the initiative of
distributed and decentralized leaders. This is a long way from the clich of leadership as vision, which was
often another way for positional leaders to exercise dominance and achieve alpha status. Len Sweet recalls
that Governor Gray Davis of Californiasubsequently recalledwas toast the minute he said, early in his
term, that the state legislatures job was to implement my vision.32 When leadership development is
disfigured as the vision thing, we are teaching a dysfunctional system to leaders whose success will
hinge on their ability to dismantle the very thing theyve been taught. 33
Conclusion
Chaordic leaders are comfortable with paradox, and they lead by building consensus. Chaordic leaders
empower the vision of all Gods people and leverage the power of networks, building a leadership culture.
They are boundary-crossers and poets, who renew missional imagination and cultivate environments
where people discover their callings in the world. The authority of chaordic leaders rises not from their
position, but from service.
Whether you see leadership rooted in people or process, an individual gift or a communal calling,
leadership remains a key tool for sense-making, and sense-making is the great need in a world where
foundations are crumbling, and grand narratives are fragmenting in favor of local ones.
Rather than seeing the problem, lets recognize the opportunity. The rising generation want to participate;
they have a contribution to make and they have unique voices. They want to see the world change for the
better, and they want to understand why certain actions make sense. They want to be part of a big story,
31

JR Woodward describes the functioning of five-fold gifting as polycentric leadership. Creating a

Missional Culture (Downers Grove: IVP, 2012)
32
Sweet, Summoned to Lead (Zondervan, 2004)
33
Ibid.,, 17.

Gods work of redemption in healing creation and setting all things to rights. They want authentic church,
where people get real with each other, and to belong to a people who make a difference.
Lets help them discover their place in Gods kingdom!

*************************************************************

BIO

Len Hjalmarson lives with his wife Betty in Kelowna, BC among the
orchards and vineyards of the Okanagan valley. His passions are culture,
spiritual formation and leadership and he is a member of the Parish
Collective. When not writing he can be found leading contemplative
retreats or perfecting bread recipes.
Len is the author of The Missional Church Fieldbook (LULU: 2010) and coauthor of Missional Spirituality (IVP: 2011). His book on a theology of
place will be released with The House Studio in fall, 2013.
Len is an adjunct professor at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in
Chicago, Tyndale University-College and Seminary in Toronto, and George
Fox Evangelical Seminary in Portland. len.hjalmarson@gmail.com